Campaign Armies

[me_in_japan]

2 options off the top of my head.
1. A no aspect warriors list. You'd still get Harlies for Assaulting stuff and you'd be able to take lots of firepower in the form of tanks and walkers etc.
2. An aspect warriors only list (transports would be ok). Maybe throw the Avatar in there as well.

And before you start yelling, look at the marine list I suggested. No Sternguard, TH/SS Termies or Land Raiders and a limit on razorbacks, all the things you'd expect to see in a game winning army.

not yelling or anything, but you're suggesting that removing 3 possible choices from teh marine codex equates to removing either 9 different units (aspect warriors) or 13 different units (non aspect warriors) from the eldar one? Not even looking at HQ, that seems a bit disproportionate. The eldar book is entirely designed around synergy. As soon as you start cutting bits out the whole shebang falls apart. I applaud your idea of making fluffy games, but chopping bits out of the codex simply doesnt work. I appreciate that it probably does for marines, but not everyone plays marines.

you asked me to suggest a fluffy, themed eldar list. I'm assuming that it would be preferable for everyone if it wasnt completely gimped or spammy.

I cant.*

I'm all ears if you have any suggestions.

I think that the way to do it is either:

1) use the codex as-is

or

2) play as gentlemen, and agree both armies beforehand, tweaking as necessary until both parties are agreed that the game is either balanced, or that it'll be played to see how many the underdog can take with 'im before he goes. i.e. scenario based.

*edit - this may be a bit misleading. I could sugeest any number of fluffy armies based on a single given scenario. What I cant do is suggest a range of units that can be removed from teh codex to make an army "more fluffy" in any given situation.

[Primarch]

... but you're suggesting that removing 3 possible choices from the marine codex equates to removing either 9 different units (aspect warriors) or 13 different units (non aspect warriors) from the eldar one?

@M_i_J - Should I be insulted that you believe I am stupid enough for that to actually be true?

The whole thing is voluntary anyway. If you dont want to take part, then dont.

@ Voss and The Ruckster - Good ideas guys please keep them coming.

[me_in_japan]

Course not I'm just trying to point out that what works for one army doesn't necessarily work for another. People have suggested some ideas that are quite nice, although I really can't think how to do it for eldar. If anybody has any ideas, I am all ears. (really, I'm not being sarcastic here.)

Just to show willing, for a nice, fluffy, themed list, how about:

Chaos lord, daem prince or sorcerer with mark of nurgle, kitted out as you see fit, but ideally on a palanquin. Or Typhus.
Units with the mark of nurgle only. (no non-marked, no non-nurgle)
Possessed vehicles only, preferably modelled to look nurgle.
Lesser/greater daems are ok, but with opponents consent, pbearers or GUO would be good.
All infantry in units of 7 (or multiples thereof)

That's a fluffy army, regardless of scenario.

[Primarch]

Course not I'm just trying to point out that what works for one army doesn't necessarily work for another. People have suggested some ideas that are quite nice, although I really can't think how to do it for eldar. If anybody has any ideas, I am all ears. (really, I'm not being sarcastic here.)

Well, what is the difference between the various craftworlds other than the paint job? I'm sure the old eldar codex used to have variant lists for each one.

Just to show willing, for a nice, fluffy, themed list, how about:

Chaos lord, daem prince or sorcerer with mark of nurgle, kitted out as you see fit, but ideally on a palanquin. Or Typhus.
Units with the mark of nurgle only. (no non-marked, no non-nurgle)
Possessed vehicles only, preferably modelled to look nurgle.
Lesser/greater daems are ok, but with opponents consent, pbearers or GUO would be good.
All infantry in units of 7 (or multiples thereof)

That's a fluffy army, regardless of scenario.

And thats the kind of list I am talking about. Something that looks like you'd find it in a Black Library book rather than on BoLS.


BTW. The marine list posted at the start drops SEVENTEEN units from the codex and imposes a limit on 8 others.

[Tenorikuma]

Nearly every army has themed army and unit suggestions that appear here and there in White Dwarf articles, don't they? Maybe dig those up and propose them as specific ideas that grant some sort of bonus if followed.

[Primarch]

Nearly every army has themed army and unit suggestions that appear here and there in White Dwarf articles, don't they? Maybe dig those up and propose them as specific ideas that grant some sort of bonus if followed.

Sadly WD stopped having decent articles a long time ago. But if people do have a lot of the older editions these might be good places to start looking.

The Chapter Approved articles they used to run would be ideal.

[dnanoodle]

Is this campaign already under way?

Also, sorry to comment on a thread so old, but it was a neat conversation. I'm confused as to why MiJ brought up having no aspect warriors. You could always limit yourself to certain kinds. Heck, there are actually fluffy lists without them. Ulthwe is a notable example. Saim Hann also has significant limitations.

I personally tend towards Guardian Defenders and Stormies. Maybe Rangers too. Though I have to admit, without Fire Dragons we'd be relying on Bright Lances that cost an arm and a leg if we wanted to shoot down AV 13 & 14. And even then, they're not that reliable. That'd be a tough handicap to overcome.

[Admiral-Badruck]

yes it is currently underway... Orks and Necrons are in the lead...

[dnanoodle]

Woot! Go go Xenos!

I'd be interested in getting in on the next one. Never really played a campaign before.

[me_in_japan]

this is a Thread of Danger Prim and I have our little disagreements from time to time, and the subject of fluffification of eldar is one of em. Dat is all I will say on da subject, cos Prim's a good bloke who I don't want to argue with about l'il toy soldiers